Broadband Now A Legal Right In Finland → Re: Interesting

So based on your argument, everything should be run by the government?

I have to agree with the previous poster. If someone don't like the type of service he receives from a business or said service does not meet his needs and yet continues to buy it anyway then that person is a complete and total fool, and deserves to be separated from his money.

That's a stupid argument as far as US broadband goes. The only option you have to "leave" is to ditch internet/phone/tv service altogether, which is more unreasonable than paying the price. There are no other options to run to.

And if you continue to reward companies with your business while they provide you with something that doesn't meet your needs, then where is their incentive to improve?

Perhaps you need the connection for some reason and there are no other provider options, or the options that are there are pretty much the same as what you are currently on.

What are you supposed to do then? Go hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt to move somewhere that you can get a different broadband provider?

No, you are stuck.

Such is the reality of US ISPs.

You are lumping in phone & TV service with broadband as if you reject broadband you have no other choices for phone & TV. That isn't true - re sat TV, OTA TV, landline phone, cell phone, etc.

I never said that. The pricing schemes on all 3 are generally regarded as ridiculous, and the service(except for maybe landline phone service) is generally regarded as crappy. And for TV I was referring to cable.

That's why I have them in a group.

That is EXACTLY what you said{only option you have to "leave" is to ditch internet/phone/tv service altogether}, but maybe not what you meant.

And if the connection satisfying that reason then how can you claim it "sucks?"

Yea

Where did I say it was satisfying any reasons?

You can use 28k dialup for the same stuff that you can use 25mb cable for, but whether one is feasible or not is a different matter.

Maybe you could, I know I couldn't. I would definitely not be paying for 28k dialup if that was the only option.

The fallacy of the false choice. If nothing should be run by the government, what is government doing in the business if easements and rights of ways? And, worse, giving access to that public property to further corporate interests?

It's reasonable to question whether such monopolistic use of public property deserves greater regulation to ensure that property is being used with the public's interests in mind.

It's not an either/or, as if doing so will lead to government takeover of your local Sears store.

If done right, it wouldn't even require a takeover of the ISP. Just the last-mile infrastructure from which residents could gateway to any ISP they wish. More competition, not less.The problem is that we're not talking about something like your local 20-50 auto mechanics. We're talking about monopolies and duopolies that exist largely due to their use of public property to avoid negotiating (free-market style) property access with each individual property owner.

That's hardly "competition" in the sense of, "if you don't like it, switch to something else." It's that lack of competition that justified giving them access to public rights of way and easements (so they wouldn't be held over a barrel by 3-4 property owners who could set their price to use their property at astronomical prices.).

How is it a false choice when the previous poster was advocating it? And where did I suggest that nothing should be run by the government?True, but how is that related to people paying money for services that do not meet their needs? As another poster pointed out with the example of 28.8k dialup being the only internet option in town, if that was unable to fill my needs as an internet user, I'd skip it.

If it's the only choice in town, you'll be more willing to settle for something that doesn't meet your needs. It's not like you have a choice. Nor does the seller of that inferior service have much incentive (competing sellers) to provide a better service, or to learn what the true "market" will bear.

For someone who claims to advocate a market-based philosophy, your arguments imply that you have the slightest idea what markets are.

Your arguments neither take your own position seriously (applying the philosophy to its nature conclusion, as you insist others must do). Nor does it allow others to be pragmatic (i.e., more oversight of what is a socialized market) because you insist that a philosophical principle is more important. (One which you don't apply as consistently as you expect others.).

It's like you're just intentionally antagonizing people rather than taking your own philosophy seriously. It doesn't really promote free-market economics. It just seems to be disingenuous entertainment to you.

Why would I do that? It would be a waste of money.That is indeed true. But I am not making the choice not to use something because I want to make a social statement, I just see it as a waste of money that I wish to avoid.Really? So a market requires people to make purchases of things they do not need or want against their will? That wasn't in any economics theory I ever learned.

I know that there are some people who are perfectly content to waste their money on things they do not need or want. I'm not one of them. If all of the choices presented to me are not to my liking, or not going to help me solve a problem, then I always have the last choice, not participating.

You never learned Maslov's wants and needs?

Willing buyers and sellers weigh a variety of criteria, including the lack of variety and how that affects their negotiating position with the seller who holds all the cards (so to speak).

The choice to go without, or move (due to lack of choice as a result of a socially-created monopoly) is not a factor. If it is a factor, it was surprisingly absent from your arguments against socialized healthcare.

No. I just learned that if something doesn't meet my needs, I won't buy it.Actually, a lot of people choose to go without health insurance because they believe they do not need it. Most of these people are young. I don't believe they should be forced to buy something they do not want, and if they are willing to be on the hook for an expensive medical bill, then why keep that choice from them.

My main argument against socialized health care is its efficacy. I keep hearing all the time in many countries that have such systems people are routinely denied care and because there is no private alternative, people there have to do without. While our system has its faults and quite honestly, does need some level of fixing, I do think that the option to go into debt, even a lot of debt, to get a procedure you need privately is a very important one that still needs to remain in place. I'd rather the option to obtain a service at a very high cost be on the table than not having that choice available at any cost.

If you never learned Maslow's "Wants and Needs," you must not have spent much time learning economics and the psychology of the consumer.

Just because a consumer needs something very badly doesn't excuse a monopolistic seller that exists largely due to "helps" from society. That is a form of coercion, not a consumer choosing a generic brand peanut butter over six other varieties through the weighing of his wants and needs (settling for less tasty PB in order to get the dozen eggs he wants).

After natural disasters we typically don't excuse "price gougers" (water, food, gasoline) under the premise that, if the consumer doesn't find value in a $10-loaf of bread, they shouldn't buy it.However, when something went horribly wrong, they became a burden on society. Their needs met in the Emergency Room, and the costs passed on to others.Fortunately, that ship's already set sale. Now you are forced to purchase healthcare from a monopolized industry which exists largely due to "helps" (coercion).

If you choose to not move to another country, we can deduce that you are a willing participant in what is a "free market."

We don't need to get into how those forced to pay for the opt-out people weren't really operating in a "free market" either. That's just handwaving on your part.

If it contradicts the premise of a buyer making an informed decision to not purchase something because it doesn't meet his wants or needs, it can't be that ideal. You could make the same argument about other theories of economics, such as Keynesian economics, and they too would fall apart.This isn't exactly the same situation. Most people who are looking to buy broadband are not in that boat.

The question is what constitutes informed decisions when consumers don't have a competing seller to compare to. And, the monopolistic seller exists largely due to social "helps" (the coercive use of public property to further their private commercial goals).

Markets thrive when there is competition and transparency.

In the case of transparency, that's why we require the peanut-butter manufacturers to label their ingredients (and nutritional content). If we didn't, and one manufacturer used cardboard as an ingredient, someone like you would say "it's the consumer's responsibility to investigate the contents. They should take it for chemical analysis. Or, contact the manufacturer and *ask*. Or, only patronize the manufacturer who labels the ingredients."

As a matter of fact, that's exactly the argument people like you did use when mandatory food labeling was debated. Today it's the "new normal." Everyone expects it as a part of a thriving food market within our system of "socialized capitalism."

In the case of monopolies, we either break them up or regulate them more. If the later case is the only option, it's done to ascertain that the monopoly is meeting the needs of a majority of its captive patrons. That it's not simply dismissing them as "if they didn't like our inferior service, they wouldn't buy it. Ergo, that they do buy it proves it's not an inferior service! (Whopeee! More bonuses for everyone!)"Interesting. What makes the two scenarios different to you?

IMO (if I were you), they both deal with a captive "market." Just that one has lived with it and hasn't taken steps to end it. The other is one that found itself thrust into captivity, and (like the ant and grasshopper) didn't adequately prepare (thus ceding control of their consumer choices to those who may choose to gain from that "choice.").

In either case, the captives have the choice to leave. The fact that they don't must mean they've accepted that their present "needs" are worth the "price" they face paying. Ergo, it's a "fair" price.

Of course, I do see a difference. I'm just puzzled by how you see a difference when you force everyone else into a world with no shades of gray.